Someone is going to call my a hypocrite for this one, but allow me to explain myself.

Last Friday, I went on a li'l Twitter rant (as I am sometimes prone to do) about the critical response to Cars 2. What specifically set me off was this article from Cinema Blend titled "5 Ways Pixar Can Move On From The Critical Failure Of Cars 2."

I have a problem with this because the article was published at 10:30 in the morning on THE DAY of the film's release. General audiences haven't even had a chance to see the movie yet and sites like Cinema Blend were already calling it dead on arrival.

To his credit, my good friend Joe Dunn from Joe Loves Crappy Movies tweeted "Tom I love ya but you are just as guilty of this as they are. It's the nature of the world we live in. :(" This gave me pause. Mostly because, well, he's not wrong. I've been MORE than guilty of this in the past.

Except (and I'm not trying to justify myself here) but when I react negatively to a film before it lands in theaters, I'm usually reacting negatively to the marketing. If I'm 50/50 on a seeing a movie, bad marketing combined with bad reviews will usually keep me away. But if it's a movie I want to see - like Green Lantern - I'll probably go regardless. And if it's a movie I'm wrong about - like X-Men: First Class - I'll be the first to admit it.

What Cinema Blend is doing is basically saying "The movie is terrible. Critics have already weighed in. Don't bother. What's next for Pixar?" I found the assessment premature.

I totally understand WHY they ran the story. Journalism (such as it is) is all about Getting There First. In entertainment journalism particularly, it's all about citing the trends early and (in some cases) creating them.

American's also have a weird relationship with their heroes. We love to celebrate their successes and we love to watch them fall. More importantly, we love to watch them get back up. We love a good comeback story. To make that happen, Pixar had to stumble and Cars 2 was easy pickin's.

Let's face it: the original Cars didn't exactly set the world on fire. Kids love it, but most adults loathe it. I used to be one of them. Of course, having a 4 year-old who is in love with the cast of characters from Radiator Springs kinds of forces a perspective shift. But that's neither here nor there.

In some ways, returning to the well for Cars 2 smacks of greed. The licensing and merchandising revenue from the original film was HUGE. Cars toys haven't left store shelves for the last 5 years. To leave money like that on the table would be pretty stupid from a business standpoint.

I think that's what critics are picking up on and they're punishing Pixar for it. Because here's the thing: I saw the movie this weekend and it's not that bad.

I'll write a full review later over on the Bonus Materials blog, but my point is this: All the doom-saying going on? It's trumped up. Is Cars 2 a great movie? No. It'll never hold a candle to Wall-E or The Incredibles. But here was the deciding question for me - "Is it worse than the original Cars?" Not at all. To that end, it's not worthy of the scorn it's received.

In my view, critics just got tired of talking about how great Pixar is all the time. They saw their shot and they took it.

What's been your reaction to the critical backlash against Cars 2? Do you feel it's justified or is this an industry hit job? Leave your comments below! (and look for my Cars 2 review later in the day!)

In the meantime, I wanted to draw everyone's attention to a little site-related business. I've been making efforts to spruce up the Theater Hopper store and am offering a few new products.

If you already own all of my books, but would still like some custom artwork, I've recently made available commissioned sketches for $5.00. I'm deliberately keeping the price low so it gives everyone an opportunity to own an original piece of art. Plus, it helps keep me loose creatively. Some of the stuff people have asked for so far has been really inventive! I'm also building out a Facebook gallery of commissioned sketches as well, if you want to check that out.

Sorry to bog things down with site business, but I've realized that I don't talk much about the business side of Theater Hopper anymore and things have suffered for it. Considering I only talk to you in this space once a week, I need to do a better job of folding that back in.

I’m not a James Bond fan (like the concept of character, but the movies actually bore me for some reason…), so I don’t exactly get your reference? Especially since they’re part of a much larger franchise. Are you saying, for instance, “Cars 2 is worse than the original Cars, but that’s like saying Batman Begins is worse than The Dark Knight” ?

Any James Bond film after and including “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” should be judged within their own decade of relevant Bond films as the mood and relevance to the books changes to suit the contemporary era in which they were filmed.

If you are going to compare a Bond film to a Bond film that is trying to cash in then you would compare Diamonds are Forever with Moonraker.

But this is not a time or place to discuss that. Sorry. I just really like James Bond Movies. (well most of them, I do not watch the Daniel Craig ones)

well, as far as pixar goes, to me, Cars has always been the lowest point in their careers, with that in mind it’s not a surprise if the sequel is just as bad as the original one. not to bash dreamworks, but cars seems the most dreamworks movie made by pixar, and most dreamworks animated films have a shitty sequel.

in any case i dont pay that much attention to critics when it comes to this, cause it’s easy bashing, the movie can suck and have a bad rating, but if there’s the chance of bash and point out every other flaw in another film, to stand in a higherpoint as some kind of expert on how to make films, they will do it. and that’s just not fair crticism.

I didn’t like the first Cars at all, so I won’t be seeing Cars 2. I didn’t like the two main characters and Owen Wilson just doesn’t do it for me. I saw Midnight in Paris and loved the movie but didn’t like Owen Wilson. He was perfect for the role though. I think it’s that drawn out speech that he has naturally that irks me.

The backlash against the sequel is just as you said, a chance to take down the might giant Pixar. Even their “worst” movie is better than most animated movies for kids and I suspect Cars 2 isn’t any different.But I guess for every sequel to their movies, the question will be, “Is this going to be another Cars 2?”

For me Cars never was a good Pixar film. It has heart and it has beautiful visuals and all the little personality nuances that the company seems to excel in producing. But it has one serious flaw. It is a movie where people cannot exist.

All other Pixar films have the possibility of regular people in the world that has been created. Even in Bug’s Life the bug city is under a house and made with refuse from a human world. Part of the Pixar wonder is they created a magical world within our own world that was just around when no one was looking.

Cars is a wholly separate world. While enchanting in a way it is also distancing. Yes the cars have personalities and yes the cars are human like but there is no room for people in the movie. This to me is a bit of a deviation from one of the little touches that makes a Pixar movie so engaging. Sure it is an alternate world with strange and new things but it is familiar because it is just around the corner from the world people live in. It is somehow connected to the viewer. It has personal relevance in that most tenuous and subconscious way.

Cars, not so much. It is cute and i have seen it and I was surprised that I liked it but I don’t watch as often as Finding Nemo or the Incredibles or Bug’s Life. I have no interest in seeing Cars 2 but I am interested in your review since you are someone who has seen the movie who is not interested in bashing the movie because the word “critic” is part of the job description.

I do feel the some of the critical opinions are valid since Cars was the least likely Pixar film for a sequel so it does look like a merchandising driven move rather than a story telling move. That and they are building a Cars themed section of Disney’s California Adventure (Featuring Pixar) The movie will only heighten interest in the newly developed section (to be finished in 2012)

Took my kids to see Cars 2 on Friday, then went to see Rio in 3D at the cheap theater Saturday. Cars 2 is not cinema, but it’s not supposed to be. It’s supposed to be a fun movie for kids to go see that features characters they already know and love.

I’ve always seen Cars as a sort of animated Doc Hollywood — Cars 2 would have to be some spy movie ripoff, like a bad James Bond movie. But I think the critics have forgotten that the franchise is targeted at kids primarily, and their parents secondarily.

I saw Cars 2 last night and really enjoyed it. It’s really entertaining and fun to watch. Some really cool scenes to watch and of course the visuals were stunning. I mean, it may not have been cinematically dynamite, but thats not their intentions at all here. Its supposed to just be fun to watch and easy to soak in without over analysing every little detail and plot hole. Of course its not going to be as gold as Wall-e and Toy story 3 since its not aimed at the same demographic. But I think that as far as their goal to make a really entertaining film that wasn’t light on excitement what-so ever they nailed it. Also just a side note, the “3D” version of it was beautiful. Best 3D i’ve ever seen. Most of the time I kept forgetting that it was in 3D. The way it should be felt and not seen. It wasn’t coma inducing or anything, just really plussed all the gorgeous visuals that the movie entailed. Over all it was a very entertaining movie and I don’t think it deserves all these critiques telling people not to see it just cause they’re jealous of Pixars success.

I was very hesitant about seeing cars 2 because I wasn’t a big cars fan and I’m not really a car fan in general. I actually preferred to see Green Lantern again than seeing it. But then I saw it and I really honestly enjoyed it. Not just, “it’s stupid fun”, I liked the music, I though everything came together in the story, and I really loved all the spy stuff.

And also, who cares if they’re trying to make money? They’re a company, that’s what companies are supposed to do.

While Cars 2 is definitely the worst feature Pixar has made, I think it’s getting worse reviews than the same movie released by a different studio would. It was a harmless, entertaining movie that my daughter loved and I chuckled a few times at, and that didn’t do anything wrong (it just missed a lot of chances to do things better than it did).

But in the past decade and a half we’ve come to expect much, much more from Pixar. Even the first Cars, while not up to the studio’s usual standards, runs circles around other animated movies in terms of story, characters, and visuals. Cars 2, on the other hand, seems like it does the minimum required to not be a bad movie, but compared to the rest of Pixar’s work that makes it look much worse than it actually is.

Chris, I think your assessment is exactly right. Cars 2 didn’t do anything “wrong.” It’s just not up to the caliber of other Pixar films. Therefore, people see it as “less than” in the context of other Pixar films. But it’s perfectly serviceable family entertainment and does not insult the audience’s intelligence.

I disagree that it does the minimum amount required, however. In terms of scope, character animation, locations and details, I’d say they upped their game from the original Cars 4-fold.

I haven’t seen Cars 2, and I’ve posted here before that I think Cars is an underrated film. It’s a beautiful story with just the right amount of slapstick. Cars is supposed to be the same nostalgic atmosphere as the Toy Story films; they’re supposed to harken back to a different age, and at the same time bring to life one of the favorite toys of little boys.

Also, Roger Ebert’s review of Cars 2 has made me want to go see it. I just haven’t decided who I will see it with yet!

Cars is one of my favorite Pixar films. Cars 2 will never be. It was exactly what I feared from the trailers: a plot that belongs in an Incredibles sequel shoehorned into a world where it has no business being. Fell asleep twice, and the parties I was with admitted to dozing too. So it goes! What’s next, Pixar!?

I thought it was a great action movie. While I personally am ok with the all the gun play, I am questioning it for my 5yo. Same goes for the torture and end for Bruce Campbell’s character. I think if you frame Cars 2 as an entirely different story from Cars it fairs well. Animation was outstanding, the backdrops in the different countries was outstanding.

I personally enjoyed Cars 2 more than the original. I wasn’t going in thinking that it was going to be something to blow me out of the water, I mean its Cars! I think too many people were looking for some sort of emotional moment that so many Pixar movies had. Something that I said to my girlfriend before we saw it was “I cried during Wall-E, Up and Toy Story 3, if I cry during Cars 2 I’m throwing a kid at the screen.” Not that I was angry about crying but that I knew that this was to be nothing more than a fun kids movie with no emotional investment in the characters.

The film did bring back memories of when I was young and playing with toy cars, making them talk to each other and do things that cars normally don’t do. I feel like that is something that Pixar was trying to catch with this film, and that I thought they did well.

I thought it was funny they made a sequel to the cars movie instead of a movie that could have had the more obvious sequel and possibly better story I speak of The Incredibles. I didn’t hate cars 2, it was cute and I was entertained. But no Cars 2 is meant for boys still not old enough to enjoy a James Bond film. They could have made a completely different movie using a continuing cars story line and used the one they did for a new movie instead.

Unfortunately, this is probably what Cars 2 will be most readily identified with - a punctuation mark on unsurpassed era of critical praise. This is unfair for a number of reasons.

The peripherals of Pixar's films include a legacy of quality, critical response to that standard, box office success and merchandising ubiquity. In many ways, this is a Jenga stack that was destined to tumble. As each new film is released, any small imperfection will be magnified and exploited before the tower falls.

In this case, Cars 2 has the unfortunate distinction of being released behind Toy Story 3 which was Pixar's most profitable, best reviewed film to date. Next to that, nearly anything would have looked like a pale imitator.

But does that mean that Cars 2 is a bad movie? No, it's not. Is it a great movie? Well, no. Not exactly. Then what is it? Cars 2 is a perfectly serviceable piece of family entertainment that moves briskly, entertains thoroughly and doesn't insult the audience's intelligence. That sounds like faint praise. But neither is it condemning damnation.

I guess walking out of the theater, the question that I tried to answer was "Is Cars 2 worse than the original Cars?" My conclusion was, "It isn't!" So, by that logic, how can it be the worst Pixar movie of all time. Or, at the very least "rotten?"

Well, I would say that there we some opportunities missed. Unlike the original Cars, whose theme was basically "Slow down and enjoy life," Cars 2 serves up a tepid lesson about letting your friends be who they are. It doesn't exactly resonate.

Additionally, I find that one's enjoyment of Cars 2 weighs heavily on their ability to tollerare comedian Larry the Cable Guy as the faithful tow truck, Mater. Make no mistake about it - Cars 2 is his movie. Either you're okay with that or you're not.

In the negative reviews I've read, most critics aren't okay with that. It's understandable why. As a character, Mater is well-meaning, but best in small doses. Regrettably, what Cars 2 does is makes him slightly more insufferable and ignorant so Owen Wilson (as racing superstar Lightning McQueen) has a reason to push him away in the film's first act.

This feels a little disingenuous to the character. Despite Mater's country-bumpkin exterior, in the original Cars, he at least seemed to have some awareness of how others perceived him. I'm thinking specifically when Lightning McQueen is brought in front of a Paul Newman's Doc Hudson to answer for tearing up the main drag in Radiator Springs. When Bonnie Hunt as Sally shows up, Lightning McQueen is awestruck. Even moreso when Mater says Sally is his financée. "What?!" Lighning says, incredulously. "I'm just kiddin'," Mater responds. "She jus' likes me for my body."

None of that self-awareness is on display in Cars 2 and Mater feels like he's taken a step backwards as a result.

The resulting lack of message or character progression can make Cars 2 feel somewhat shallow if you listen to your inner cynic. "This is just a money grab!" "They want to sell more toys!" You're inner cynic is right, by the way. I'm just saying that doesn't mean Cars 2 is a bad film.

In terms of scope, creativity, design and attention to detail, Cars 2 delivers exactly the way you expect a Pixar movie to. In fact, once the dust settles and people seriously sit down and consider Cars and Cars 2 side-by-side, I think they will agree with that assessment. From a technical perspective, Cars 2 is every way superior to its predecessor. Animation buffs will be dissecting it for years.

Considering that Pixar has always been a studio that trumpted the value of "Story First," Cars 2 failings in this area makes the rest of the film seem like a sell-out. I don't feel that way because I never felt like the film was wasting my time.

The more I think about it, the more I acknowledge that maybe I have my "fanboy blinders" on. But I guess I feel like I see both sides of the equation. I know where Cars 2 doesn't work but I don't feel like that diminishes the accomplishments of what DOES work about the film. Therefore, I don't feel like critics are necessarily justified in punishing the movie with abysmal reviews for an otherwise inoffensive and acceptable film.